No, that symbol contains the full scope over which you've known your dad,
plus anything you've learned about him before. However, there are narrower
contextual scopes in which you may make specific claims about that may not
always be true (my Dad when I was 12, for instance).
Jim
On Sun, Mar 17,
Alan,
In this example, the referent and the context is still the same – it’s the
relationship between you and Danny defining him as your Dad although you may
have a different view of him as a 10-year old and now; I think this example is
tangential to the problem of the URI for Dad.
Indep
My dad's name is Danny. I've known him a Long time, during which he's
changed a lot. Am I supposed to stop calling him dad because he's not
precisely the same as he was when I was 10?
-Alan
On Sunday, March 17, 2013, Erich Gombocz wrote:
> Observing this discussions for quite a while, I have to
Hi David,
We've discussed this in the past. You confuse what a uri refers to with the
framework by which a reasoner tries to figure out what entailments can be
made given some set of assertions.
It's as if I say something about my friend Jonathan Rees, and you think you
have sanction to interpret
Observing this discussions for quite a while, I have to say that I fully agree
with Jim’s comments - unless you can assert that the referent is the same AND
the contextual scope is the same, it should not have the same URI as it does
not precisely describe the same thing.
Cordially,
Erich
Hmm. In the end, all three of them are talking about the same apple. Either
a) the apple changed (they do that), or b) someone got it wrong (Is a
McIntosh a red apple or green apple? It's kind of both).
This of course goes to my general assertion that most of the time,
disjointness assertions are
Hi Alan,
On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different
graphs is an opinion
An opinion? It is direct consequence of standard RDF Semantics! Read
the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
The RDF semantics is only defined for
Hi Jim,
On 03/16/2013 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web
of data.
Well, you'd better get used to it, because that interpretation is
standard RDF Semantics. I don't think it's going away any time soon.
That's part of the m
Interesting discussion,
I would just add a bit (if it was not added in this long email series):
perhaps it is viable to assert owl:sameAs between individuals.
If you identify a person by passport number or tax number, you can collapse all
statements about the two pretty safely (assuming you cons
I'm thinking of using fda orangebook data in my mashup which includes
dbpedia, drugbank, diseasesome, linkedct etc. AFAIK there is no rdf
serialization for orangebook in lodd project, I found one dataset from
2008 and I'm considering convert ~ seperated .txt data to rdf through
coding a custom
Very nice!
On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I see Nanopublications as providing a framework for modality. They, of
> course, use named graphs to do this, but they provide a way to express
> attribution and justification in a consistent manner. http://nanopub.org
>
>
> On Sa
(Adding the list back for Alan)
I think he's looking for something like skos:exactMatch/skos:closeMatch but
for things other than concepts, which is (I would argue) prov:alternateOf.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
wrote:
> Below is the documentation for skos:concept
>
> It s
I see Nanopublications as providing a framework for modality. They, of
course, use named graphs to do this, but they provide a way to express
attribution and justification in a consistent manner. http://nanopub.org
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Madden wrote:
> Medical records are fille
David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different graphs
is an opinion that does not concur with either the web specifications nor
the goals they were built to satisfy. Caveat emptor.
-Alan
On Saturday, March 16, 2013, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Umutcan,
>
> You have indeed stumbl
Medical records are filled with modal assertions:
Possibly P(x)
I believe that P(x)
Jim believes P(x) (whereas e..g. perhaps David, Umutcan, Jeremy and I
don't).
At 5:00 pm today P(x)
I disavow P(x)
It is extremely unlikely that P(x)
I know
I see "A URI denotes only one resource" as a rule of the game that makes it
far more interesting than if we don't accept that rule. If I find that
someone is violating that rule, I'll kick them out of my game (exclude
their graph).
Jim
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:
> I'
I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web of
data. That's part of the motivation for having global identifiers like
URIs/URLs. There's no point in merging ANY graphs under this view, since
you have no way of knowing if the referents are the same. I'm not saying
that p
Hi Jim,
You are in good company in thinking that a URI always denotes the same
resource, because that is a widespread misconception. (I call it Myth
#1 in http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html .) But it simply is
not true in the RDF semantics.
The Architecture of the World Wide Web b
18 matches
Mail list logo
